Biological males in women's sport

GreeBo

El CabaIIo wrote: »

The angle we are coming at this on Gree bo is that height nor weight are protected in each sport but sex is divided and protected by the definition of calling it womens sport.

Say you take a sport like Boxing which has weight divisions, the lower weight classes are protected. 100kg men can't fight 60kg men as the weight divisions are divided to protect the smaller fighter. A sport like athletics is also divided so women can compete fairly against their own sex, there's no weight divisions or height requirements within any of the sports and any biological female can compete no matter how short, tall or strong they are within their own sex.

What the issue that we are talking about is that non-biological females don't meet the sex requirement to compete fairly on that field just like a 90kg boxer doesn't meet the rewuirements to fight in the 60kg division.

I'm not arguing this on a position of gender but am on a position of sex. To use an exageratted example to get my point across and don't take this for a like for like as we are talking about a much more complicated sceanario. Could the 90kg boxer identify as 60kg and fight in that weight class fairly?

I get what you are saying and I don't think identifying as something alternative to what you biologically are makes you that thing, but in the Caster case (and other intersex cases) identifying as a female is what makes them female as there is nothing to biologically identify them as male or female, they are literally between the two sexes.

However, at the moment IOC and other are not protecting based on sex, they are doing it based on testosterone levels, in which case they might as well do it by height and still "pretend" they are doing it by sex.

Just co confirm, I am 100% against trans athletes competing in their self identified categories I am not against intersex people competing in theirs though, since I dont know what alternative they have.

To borrow and stretch your example even more if I have some condition that means my weight cannot be calculated, is it fair to just lump me into the heavyweight division?

Zorya

I am coming to a new point of view

Let it all happen. Let the trans women compete fully with the biological women, at all levels in every sport. And why should they even have to damage their bodies with testosterone suppressors, as McKinnon argues. Bring it on.



Because when those podiums start filling up with big beefy transwomen towering over the chicks and scooping up the medals, especially if it's something like the Olympics or Wimbledon or big time TV sports, and when enough biological girls can't access scholarships and grants and sponsorship or make the records for female sporting achievements, there is going to be a fast and furious awakening to Peak Trans among the general public.

And then trans allies will wish they never tried to jam their ideological compost - that's you, Dr. Rachel ''I am a biological woman'' McKinnon - down everyone's throats so hard for so long.

Yeah, baby, bring it on.

Candamir

GreeBo wrote: »

I get what you are saying and I don't think identifying as something alternative to what you biologically are makes you that thing, but in the Caster case (and other intersex cases) identifying as a female is what makes them female as there is nothing to biologically identify them as male or female, they are literally between the two sexes.

However, at the moment IOC and other are not protecting based on sex, they are doing it based on testosterone levels, in which case they might as well do it by height and still "pretend" they are doing it by sex.

Just co confirm, I am 100% against trans athletes competing in their self identified categories I am not against intersex people competing in theirs though, since I dont know what alternative they have.

To borrow and stretch your example even more if I have some condition that means my weight cannot be calculated, is it fair to just lump me into the heavyweight division?

Their XY chromosomes biologically identify them as male. That’s the crux of it.

GreeBo

Candamir wrote: »

She absolutely should be ‘taken’ as female - that’s how she was raised, and that’s how she identifies. And that works in the everyday world.
But she does have testicles. And, not to get too indelicate here, a clitoris and a penis are the same organ, just exposed (or more correctly responded ) to different levels of testosterone in utero. Many intersex babies have a large clitoris. Some have a small penis - it’s essentially a continuum of the same thing.
So - and I’m stretching here to make a point - what’s the difference with a couple who have a boy but decide to raise him without referring to gender - let him decide when the time comes. And he decides he wants to identify as female. But continues to develop as a boy. Should s/be be allowed compete in women’s catagories because s/he’s ‘female’? What’s the difference, - same chromosomes, same gonads, same testosterone. Ok. I get that it’s a stretch.

It's not as simple as XX = Female and XY = Male though.

WHO wrote:

"In addition, some males are born 46XX due to the translocation of a tiny section of the sex determining region of the Y chromosome," said WHO. "Similarly some females are also born 46XY due to mutations in the Y chromosome. Clearly, there are not only females who are XX and males who are XY, but rather, there is a range of chromosome complements, hormone balances, and phenotypic variations that determine sex."

My basic argument on this, or, to put it another way, where I'm saying the line should be drawn is based on natural levels of testosterone.
If the levels are natural and you are and have always been female, then to me you are entitled to compete against other females.

Having a so called "sex-change" doesn't make you female and doesn't undo all the benefits you garnered from being male prior to the operation.

The fair way to solve it is to have divisions based on testosterone levels but I logistically think its not going to work.

GreeBo

Candamir wrote: »

Their XY chromosomes biologically identify them as male. That’s the crux of it.

Not according to the WHO though...

BrokenArrows

It's insane to have men compete in women's events even after fully transitioning.

The only way they're allowed to compete is by passing medical tests showing that their hormone and testosterone levels are low enough to be considered a woman.

Who decides those levels? It's likely a level that still puts them automatically into the top percentages of female athletes.

Any level anyway is just basically saying "are you medically **** enough to compete against actual women".

Transitioned athletes should never be allowed to compete against women. The default advantage is too high.

BrokenArrows

GreeBo wrote: »

Not according to the WHO though...

If they stop taking medication then they return to being a man. Therefore they are always men and will always be.

Candamir

Greebo, to address your WHO quote above:

“some males are born 46XX due to the translocation of a tiny section of the sex determining region of the Y chromosome”

They literally have a mutation of the very part of the Y chromosome that determines sex! So they don’t develop testes, produce testosterone, or appear masculine. So, yes I’ll give you that they have an XY genotype, but the Y is damaged - in the very location that makes it, well essentially a Y! In so far as sex determination goes anyway.

Candamir

GreeBo wrote: »

Not according to the WHO though...

I think the WHO will back me up on my XY is male mantra!:D

GreeBo

Candamir wrote: »

Greebo, to address your WHO quote above:

“some males are born 46XX due to the translocation of a tiny section of the sex determining region of the Y chromosome”

They literally have a mutation of the very part of the Y chromosome that determines sex! So they don’t develop testes, produce testosterone, or appear masculine. So, yes I’ll give you that they have an XY genotype, but the Y is damaged - in the very location that makes it, well essentially a Y! In so far as sex determination goes anyway.

Candamir wrote: »

I think the WHO will back me up on my XY is male mantra!:D

You conveniently missed out this part of the quote:

"Clearly, there are not only females who are XX and males who are XY, but rather, there is a range of chromosome complements, hormone balances, and phenotypic variations that determine sex.""

GreeBo

BrokenArrows wrote: »

If they stop taking medication then they return to being a man. Therefore they are always men and will always be.

Caster will?!?

I think you are arguing against something I'm not saying...

klaaaz

BrokenArrows wrote: »

It's insane to have men compete in women's events even after fully transitioning.

The only way they're allowed to compete is by passing medical tests showing that their hormone and testosterone levels are low enough to be considered a woman.

Who decides those levels? It's likely a level that still puts them automatically into the top percentages of female athletes.

Any level anyway is just basically saying "are you medically **** enough to compete against actual women".

Transitioned athletes should never be allowed to compete against women. The default advantage is too high.

BrokenArrows wrote: »

If they stop taking medication then they return to being a man. Therefore they are always men and will always be.

Here's the ignorance raising its head again, another poster who knows more than the medical community, even the Endocrine Society themselves!!. Have you read the excellent contributions from posters who have varying in depth views on transgender and intersex athletes? You haven't.

Candamir

GreeBo wrote: »

You conveniently missed out this part of the quote:

"Clearly, there are not only females who are XX and males who are XY, but rather, there is a range of chromosome complements, hormone balances, and phenotypic variations that determine sex.""

Ok. Let’s keep it simple. There are lots of different intersex states. Some have both male and female gonads (these used be called hermaphrodites). Some have one or the other (Previoysly known as pseudohermaphrodites). There are loads of combinations of X’s and Y’s in there.

The kind that usually turns up in elite athletics is androgen insensitivity, either complete (like Chand) or partial (like Caster). Mild androgen insensitivity doesn’t cause an issue, because these kids develop as normal male babies, and are raised male, fitting with their genotype (they run into issues at puberty with secondary sexual development).

My feeling on it is that if a person has developed testes because they carry the male Y chromosome, if they produce and are responsive to testosterone, and hence gain an advantage by virtue of that male chromosome, then that is an unfair advantage which is tied to that male chromosome. That playing field needs to be levelled, because it is unfair to XX females.
Otherwise we should just allow a testosterone doping free for all.


Edit to add:
I appreciate where you’re coming from, natural = ok etc, but when it natural due to a male trait, then I don’t think it should be allowed in female competition. I’d have no issue with athletes with PCOS for example, even though they have higher androgen levels.

klaaaz

Zorya wrote: »

Because when those podiums start filling up with big beefy transwomen towering over the chicks and scooping up the medals, especially if it's something like the Olympics or Wimbledon or big time TV sports, and when enough biological girls can't access scholarships and grants and sponsorship or make the records for female sporting achievements, there is going to be a fast and furious awakening to Peak Trans among the general public.

We're still waiting for over decades now for transgender champions(or even athletes) in the Olympics and Wimbledon. Tall people should not be a barring factor in the relevant sport, even small people can be good at basketball but not the high jump unfortunately.

Zorya

klaaaz wrote: »

We're still waiting for over decades now for transgender champions(or even athletes) in the Olympics and Wimbledon. Tall people should not be a barring factor in the relevant sport, even small people can be good at basketball but not the high jump unfortunately.

Transgender people were not pushing their way into women's sports the way it is happening now. There is a huge level of frankly misogynistic bullying going on, as well as administrative paralysis due to misconceived political correctness.

You and I won't agree on this issue, and we have had our backs and forths and know where each other stands - so maybe let's agree to disagree and meet you here again in about 5 years or so and we will see what the state of play is then.

ceadaoin.

Women's sports are there to give women the right to a fair competition. They are not there to validate peoples identities. As we have seen, no concession is good enough anyway. People like McKinnon want to to be able to compete against women without even lowering their testosterone and this should be allowed because women should be nice and inclusive or they are horrible terfy bigots. The two teen trans athletes dominating track and field in Connecticut aren't on any hormones or blockers. Be nice girls and don't complain, it's all about their validation while they take state championships and scholarships away from girls.

It's nothing but bullying. So women got what, 50 years of having their own sports before it gets taken over by males? No, the time to stop this is now

jmayo

The most worrying thing for me, apart from this making a mockery of womens sports, is that a vile individual who makes outlandish claims such as the one that growing up as a male bestows no different physical attributes to someone who has grown up as a true female or that a lesbian that doesn't want a trans cock is somehow discriminatory, is actually in a position in modern education to influence future generations of adults.

It is akin to having William Shockley in a teaching position on genetics in a university.
Granted Shockley was at least a genius in one field unlike McKinnon who has no discernible qualities that one can find.

ceadaoin.

klaaaz wrote: »

We're still waiting for over decades now for transgender champions(or even athletes) in the Olympics and Wimbledon. Tall people should not be a barring factor in the relevant sport, even small people can be good at basketball but not the high jump unfortunately.

What about non trans identified men who have naturally occurring lower levels of testosterone, but within the limits allowed for trans women. If you think that it's just testosterone that gives an advantage then do you think they should also compete against women?

Danzy

BrokenArrows wrote: »

It's insane to have men compete in women's events even after fully transitioning.

The only way they're allowed to compete is by passing medical tests showing that their hormone and testosterone levels are low enough to be considered a woman.

Who decides those levels? It's likely a level that still puts them automatically into the top percentages of female athletes.

Any level anyway is just basically saying "are you medically **** enough to compete against actual women".

Transitioned athletes should never be allowed to compete against women. The default advantage is too high.

The testosterone level is a red herring though, it is the elevated testosterone level from childhood on that makes the difference..

klaaaz

ceadaoin. wrote: »

What about non trans identified men who have naturally occurring lower levels of testosterone, but within the limits allowed for trans women. If you think that it's just testosterone that gives an advantage then do you think they should also compete against women?

If I read this right, you're asking about cisgender men with low testosterone which has the same level as women?

The sports bodies have their rules for competition in female sports, as we're concentrating on athletics in this thread..

(a) she must be recognised at law either as female or as intersex (or equivalent);

(b) she must reduce her blood testosterone level to below five (5) nmol/L for a continuous period of at least six months (e.g., by use of hormonal contraceptives); and

(c) thereafter she must maintain her blood testosterone level below five (5) nmol/L continuously (ie: whether she is in competition or out of competition) for so long as she wishes to remain eligible.

ceadaoin.

klaaaz wrote: »

If I read this right, you're asking about cisgender men with low testosterone which has the same level as women?

The sports bodies have their rules for competition in female sports, as we're concentrating on athletics in this thread..

I'm asking what you think. There is no requirement for surgery to allow trans women to compete so physically there isn't any difference . Do you think the cis man with low testosterone would have an advantage?

If there are no vestigial benefits of going through male puberty ,as you claim, then what is the logic behind why one should get to compete against women but not the other?

ceadaoin.

Well I see my question wasn't answered. Twice.

Anyway, I found this section from a times piece this weekend interesting. It's about Renee Richards, who Martina referenced in her article. Yes, she is such a transphobe that she hired a trans woman as her coach :rolleyes:

Richards, who later became her coach, was over 40 when she underwent full surgical transition yet held her own against females at their physical peak. She has since reflected that if she’d transitioned at 22, “no genetic woman in the world would have been able to come close to me. And so I’ve reconsidered my opinion.”

I guess Renee Richards is also a transphobe, despite being a trans woman herself.

Here is a link to the piece

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/male-bodies-dont-belong-in-womenssport-n5ghggrpk?shareToken=15f13605327def1913f7f393e89b0b7a

Johnnyhpipe

Hande hoche! wrote: »

From what I understand, they test the level of testosterone. Still imagine there is some advantages post transition in terms of bone density and muscle mass owing to their previous gender.

Previous gender? You can’t change your gender. You can put on a wig, makeup, chop off your balls and get silicone tits. But you can’t change your gender.

ceadaoin.

Johnnyhpipe wrote: »

Previous gender? You can’t change your gender. You can put on a wig, makeup, chop off your balls and get silicone tits. But you can’t change your gender.

You can change your gender, you cant change your sex. There needs to be a distinction between the two. Present how you want, whatever, fair play to you. People should live how they want and be recognised as such socially etc, but to deny biological reality, well that's delusional. A human being cannot change sex, no matter what the HSE says (before that page gets linked again)

pleas advice

Johnnyhpipe wrote: »

Previous gender? You can’t change your gender. You can put on a wig, makeup, chop off your balls and get silicone tits. But you can’t change your gender.

You're right you know, he was always a woman

klaaaz

ceadaoin. wrote: »

I'm asking what you think. There is no requirement for surgery to allow trans women to compete so physically there isn't any difference . Do you think the cis man with low testosterone would have an advantage?

If there are no vestigial benefits of going through male puberty ,as you claim, then what is the logic behind why one should get to compete against women but not the other?

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Well I see my question wasn't answered. Twice.

I stated the rules, I don't set the rules. As you can see, that person would have to change their status legally as well pursue the required hormone path. If that person had an extremely low level of testosterone which you never defined, that person would highly unlikely to have developed a male physique. Caster for example would easily beat that person in a race.

ceadaoin. wrote: »

You can change your gender, you cant change your sex. There needs to be a distinction between the two. Present how you want, whatever, fair play to you. People should live how they want and be recognised as such socially etc, but to deny biological reality, well that's delusional. A human being cannot change sex, no matter what the HSE says (before that page gets linked again)

This is shocking, you defending the transgender people from a hostile poster!

Candamir

klaaaz wrote: »

This is shocking, you defending the transgender people from a hostile poster!

Why so shocking? Don’t you understand the difference between an extreme radical militant person, and someone, like ceadaoin, who wants to discuss an issue?

klaaaz

Candamir wrote: »

Why so shocking? Don’t you understand the difference between an extreme radical militant person, and someone, like ceadaoin, who wants to discuss an issue?

Alot of posters here(the civil ones) with opposing views to the likes of myself on the transgender issue never object to the posters(uncivil) who post downright ugly ignorant attacking hostility to transgender people. It was surprisingly nice to see Ceadaoin post that rebuttal.

Zorya

Candamir wrote: »

Why so shocking? Don’t you understand the difference between an extreme radical militant person, and someone, like ceadaoin, who wants to discuss an issue?

The conflation of the two types is essential to the disruption of the debate. People who object to the push of unscientific ideology regarding transgenderism have to be equated with bigoted transphobic monsters. It is constant on boards, this attitude. And elsewhere.

Zorya

klaaaz wrote: »

Alot of posters here(the civil ones) with opposing views to the likes of myself on the transgender issue never object to the posters(uncivil) who post downright ugly ignorant attacking hostility to transgender people. It was surprisingly nice to see Ceadaoin post that rebuttal.

That's because - well, for me personally - I generally scroll right past hostile posts from any side of any discussion. There are plenty of radical assertions from all sides - to address each one would be entirely disruptive, but maybe that's a tactic for derailing things, I don't know.